Well, this is a surprise. Several websites have a preview up of Apple's next Mac OS X release - it's called Mountain Lion, and continues the trend of bringing over functionality from iOS to Mac OS X. Lots of cool stuff in here we've all seen before on iPhones and iPads, including one very, very controversial feature: Gatekeeper. Starting with Mac OS X 10.8, Apple's desktop operating system will be restricted to Mac App Store and Apple-signed applications by default (with an opt-out switch), following in Windows 8's footsteps.

I tried looking at their video, but they're requiring QT to be installed. After all their hype about HTML5, h.264, and railing against plugins, they're quick to change their tune when it's their own plugin...annoying.

I tried looking at their video, but they're requiring QT to be installed. After all their hype about HTML5, h.264, and railing against plugins, they're quick to change their tune when it's their own plugin...annoying.

Very annoying indeed. QuickTime is a pile of dog poo, just like Flash. HTML5 video already, Apple.

Here's a tip: put an abstraction layer in there and use the platform's native systems, which are working just fine and dandy.

Not necessarily. Neither Windows XP nor Windows Vista shipped with the necessary codecs. Windows 7 ships with most of them, but there would be no way to integrate Apple's DRM.

Even if there was, they would still need QuickTime to support Windows XP, Windows Vista and Mac OS X. There's no benefit in supporting two different back-ends, just so that Windows 7 users don't have to install QuickTime.

It's not like having QuickTime installed takes up any resources anyway. Unless you go and run the thing yourself, it's just taking up a small amount of disk space. Far less than iTunes or Safari do, at any rate.

I was refering to MF. The best approach would be for them to support it as a backend and then ship MFTs.

The benefit users get is that there is just one entity (the OS) handling codecs, streams, just about anything media related. A single instance which developers can tap into (if Apple creates MFTs then I can use those as well), a single instance that needs updating, and so on.

However, I am not using MF in my application. So I am as much to blame here. But my reasons are: lack of documentation and lack of resources (I am one guy). If Apple (and others) would start using the native systems then we smaller developers could get going as well since a system grows with its userbase. More knowledge spreading around the interwebs and more docs from MS, making it a lot easier to use.

Sure our Windows and Mac machines will be locked down... But that's why we buy them... My Mac needs to just work, I dont have time to worry about something going wrong with it, the same with my iPhone... If we want to do more fun stuff then we buy a Raspberry Pi or build a Linux machine.

There is an alternative possibility. Maybe Apple feels that the whole App store is getting a bit too big and cumbersome but they don't want to lose the advantages of curation (see below) so maybe the option of signed apps available from outside the App store might migrate to iOS. Remember the App store is a break even operation for Apple - it's just there, like the whole of iTunes, to build value for Apple's devices.

On the whole issue of curation and freedom. The reality for the vast majority of users is that the curated (app store or other) model is a huge increase in freedom, freedom from fear, anxiety, disaster. The experience of the previous two decades of PC computing culminated for most users in a terrible sense of anxiety about their PCs, most are not power users or tweakers or techies, they are just normal people trying to use PCs to do things, sometimes very important or valuable or personal things. People's actual experience of PCs was that of a constant threat of system crashes, system corruption, lost data and actually malicious attack. The fear often paralysed people, they would stop surfing, stop clicking links, stop opening attachments, stop trying out new software, anything to feel safe. None of that is an exaggeration, it's how it actually was and still is for many. Plus of course the actual software was often badly written and hugely over priced.

So when iOS came along, first on the iPhone and then on the iPad, it was greeted with huge enthusiasm by normal users, that's why the app explosion happened (a billion apps downloaded a week!), people felt liberated and could finally explore whilst feeling perfectly safe.

I think Thom is just the embodiment of a moral compass needed to unify people in hard times of market sickness and innovation starving, later becoming a symbol of our fanily values, and a voice for our concerns about the future of our devices.

Just because some people point to his words when starting flame wars, and some people see him as the anti-fireball, it's still we who fight, hidden behind some idea of a man (ideal or dutch, doesn't matter).

OSdever's conclusion : "Right, so now is the time to build an OS that's as comfortable to use as iOS without the totalitarian BS, while potential users still have lots of open x86 hardware around to run it on"

I'd be (pleasantly) surprised if this meant that iOS would allow signed but not App Store curated apps to be installed, though you sort of can today with Ad Hoc builds (in a very limited manner where you have to include the target machine ids in the cert).

I'm also personally not entirely comfortable with the idea that Apple / Microsoft may decide to just lock down the desktop OSes entirely, but I'm not sure I (or you, or most people on this site) are the real average users who will NEVER build their own app and NEVER even realize that something has been locked down. Other than seeing less malware.

I do think that the fact that you have App Store apps or Apple Developer program signed apps is a net positive for the end users in that you can at least feel like apps you get from outside the App Store are somewhat more safe - at least you know who signed them. Maybe that works out as a net positive for developers of apps that can't run sandboxed if people still feel more comfortable.

The other thing that rubs me the wrong way is the entire app sandboxing / file sandboxing. The flat view of files is really too shallow for people who work professionally on machines. Of course, as we've seen with much of iOS, Apple seems to have had the insight that while geeks build the computers, write the software, etc., they are not the 99% of the target audience. Would my parents miss not seeing the file system? Would they wish they could run multiple apps to edit the same document? Do they understand folders? As far as I can tell, the answer is no to all of those.

So while I don't like that either at a pretty deep level, I'm not sure it's wrong end users, but rather because it's wrong for us. There needs to be an option to open the system (app installs, file system navigation) for development or 'pro' users, but I'd be shocked if locked down isn't the default in a year or two.

The average user could not install and run a Linux box for any length of time without banging their head against the wall in frustration... they don't have the time or desire to mess with it. And it does take more time and effort to configure especially when you really don't know your way around a computer except for the big 5 (web browsing, email, spreadsheets, word processing and presentation)

The average user could not install and run a Linux box for any length of time without banging their head against the wall in frustration... they don't have the time or desire to mess with it. And it does take more time and effort to configure especially when you really don't know your way around a computer except for the big 5 (web browsing, email, spreadsheets, word processing and presentation)

I'm not too worried about such people really. If they aren't interested enough to figure out how to do this, what makes you think their apathy would somehow turn into interest in a free desktop environment?

The writer says what Apple is doing could create a shortage of hard-core developers. Ok. People like that tend to be fine with installing Linux - even on their first try. People like that are not the same people that you're talking about.

I'm not too worried about such people really. If they aren't interested enough to figure out how to do this, what makes you think their apathy would somehow turn into interest in a free desktop environment?

It's not about a free desktop environment. It's about being able to do whatever you want with hardware and software you already paid for and own. There's no valid reason I shouldn't be able to install something on a general purpose operating system if I want to.

The writer says what Apple is doing could create a shortage of hard-core developers. Ok. People like that tend to be fine with installing Linux - even on their first try. People like that are not the same people that you're talking about.

That's mostly true today. And the author is not arguing otherwise. However, if machines are locked down like this, then the barrier to entry for anyone to get to the point where they would be "fine with installing Linux" would be severely increased. This is especially true on Macs because of the non-conforming UEFI implementation that they use.

There most certainly is a war on general purpose computing. It's not such a stretch to say that in 10 years, every computer will be locked down out of the box and will require reverse engineering to regain absolute control of the hardware. At that point, the activity will probably be a DMCA violation and declared illegal on the grounds that it could 'enable teh dirty pirates' or some other such nonsense.

The thing is, it might need to get to that point before there's any meaningful resistance. I hope not, but most people don't care and won't care until it's too late. I believe that this is the point the article makes.

It's not about a free desktop environment. It's about being able to do whatever you want with hardware and software you already paid for and own. There's no valid reason I shouldn't be able to install something on a general purpose operating system if I want to.

Then don't buy it. Believe it or not we are large enough in number to support a market. If Macs and Windows PCs turn into locked-in boxes that are illegal to tinker with, we simply won't buy them. No one can force us to buy a specific brand of computer, and our demand will shift to a vendor who will cater to our needs.

if machines are locked down like this, then the barrier to entry for anyone to get to the point where they would be "fine with installing Linux" would be severely increased. This is especially true on Macs because of the non-conforming UEFI implementation that they use.

Again, if it's not the product for you, don't buy it. Buy the right product that will fit your needs. If one doesn't exist, make it! There is a market!

System 76 for instance, appears to be doing just fine even before this scenario has completed. There will be more like it, likely supported by the Linux vendors.

At that point, the activity will probably be a DMCA violation and declared illegal on the grounds that it could 'enable teh dirty pirates' or some other such nonsense.

I'll agree to you on that. Every year the government has to pass an exemption on the DMCA clause that would make jail breaking cell-phones a crime. To bring the DMCA to the computer, all a vendor has to do is declare that the purpose of their lock-down is to prevent piracy. Automatically, the act of breaking the lock allows piracy. The act it self won't be policed, but the information showing a user how to commit it will be. People could go to prison for showing a user how to circumvent a locked down EFI implementation.

It may be more trouble then it's worth to jail break a locked down PC (I assume by this point it may not even be called a PC, but something else, and resemble an Apple TV in form and function).

This will promote the creation of a 'new' market dominated by vendors like System 76, catering to geeks and tinkerers such as ourselves.

The thing is, it might need to get to that point before there's any meaningful resistance. I hope not, but most people don't care and won't care until it's too late. I believe that this is the point the article makes.

Meaningful resistance in this case is the act of 'voting with your feet'. But instead of moving your feet, you'll be moving your money to another vendor that produces the product that you want to have.

Your reasoning is good until you take the factor "workplace" and "market share" into account.

Eventually, the market share of such capped machines will be so high for one particular vendor, that the very software that you makes a living will require one these little monsters to work. And portability will not be a option thanks to a obfuscated API of the high-level tools used to develop these software, or the software is done by the same vendor of the machine.

That's the why today several people here at OSNews has dual-boot machines, even if they hates his secondary OS.

The situation will be thousands time worse in that hypothetical future, because you will need to actually have a second machine, and that sometimes is not a option for low income people.

You will also make your company even more dependent of the good will of a single monopolist supplier for all your IT needs. Your company will need to spend money just to have his custom software signed to work on theses machines. And as market share grows, the price of the signature will just too, and guess what? They could change you by machine, or even by processor cores, for something that you made (a internal software) to be used by your company.

This hypothetical monopolist will also wield the power to smash your way of living if he wants by simple revoking your developer ID for example. You need to be just slight inconvenient to them to face such fate.

Your reasoning is good until you take the factor "workplace" and "market share" into account.

Eventually, the market share of such capped machines will be so high for one particular vendor, that the very software that you makes a living will require one these little monsters to work. And portability will not be a option thanks to a obfuscated API of the high-level tools used to develop these software, or the software is done by the same vendor of the machine.

That's the why today several people here at OSNews has dual-boot machines, even if they hates his secondary OS.

The situation will be thousands time worse in that hypothetical future, because you will need to actually have a second machine, and that sometimes is not a option for low income people.

You will also make your company even more dependent of the good will of a single monopolist supplier for all your IT needs. Your company will need to spend money just to have his custom software signed to work on theses machines. And as market share grows, the price of the signature will just too, and guess what? They could change you by machine, or even by processor cores, for something that you made (a internal software) to be used by your company.

This hypothetical monopolist will also wield the power to smash your way of living if he wants by simple revoking your developer ID for example. You need to be just slight inconvenient to them to face such fate.

Out of all the replies yours makes the most sense. I agree that would suck, but I also believe it wouldn't be the end of the world for geeks. We'll still be able to do what we do. I mention the possibility of higher development costs and lower returns in my first post.

We are talking hypotheticals though - What the government, Apple, and Microsoft *might* do - What the market *might* be like.

Since there's no doubt in you that the free market is not enough to ensure continued free use and development for computers (and I'm borderline on it TBH), all that's left to ask now is:

Do you favor preemptive action on the part of the government do deal with that situation? And just how would they deal with it? Break Microsoft and Apple up? Make vendor lock-in illegal? Institute software development license price controls?

I favor an in-market civilian reaction, which is simply to create a better product. Anything other than that is top-down government intervention, and the government just doesn't understand computer technology... I couldn't trust them to work in our interest even if we had the money to bribe them to do it.

Then don't buy it. Believe it or not we are large enough in number to support a market.

that bit is not really the problem part... if my bank-maffia does not allow anything except the approved ms-apple-whatever product to acces my account... then I CANT access my account... and rest assured, all mafia (excuse me... banks etc) will make sure only approved products/comps will be able to do so (as the product owners are paying maffia... ouch... bank membership)

The writer says what Apple is doing could create a shortage of hard-core developers. Ok. People like that tend to be fine with installing Linux - even on their first try. People like that are not the same people that you're talking about.

You still can install Linux on these machines. If the trend to lock computers around a single supplier/overlord continues, you will not be able to do so without plenty of black magic in a near future.

It is easy to jailbreak a device when you have plenty of general purpose computers lying out there, capable to interface at low level with every other hardware piece in existence.

But when in the future all computers sold are actually locked down "appliances", without a single low level toolkit, without being able to plug any hardware created without the consent of the supplier, without even physical ports to interface with anything else (all in the name of good design, of course, at least is how they will sell this "feature")... well, things will become quite bleach.

You will end up with a generation that looks their computers like our own generation looks their TVs. This will result in a massive reduction in the interest in computers by potential people (that will proceed to some other professional path), and a slow down in innovation.

Worse, since these "appliances" will be black boxes, they will be massive privacy killers and a powerful tool for authoritarian regimes to keep their sheep under control. After all, if you control what a computer can do, you also control what their users can see.

If the trend to lock computers around a single supplier/overlord continues, you will not be able to do so without plenty of black magic in a near future.

The geek computer market is large enough to support itself. Geeks created the PC market, and there was a time when there was no other type of user. Because of this, the trend doesn't mean anything. We geeks know what we want. For a long time our needs and the needs of the average consumer more or less lined up. We liked the ability of a PC to do anything we told it to, and consumers liked how a PC could fit into multiple roles.

If our needs are diverging, so will our products. We'll still have our System 76, our Boxx, and new brands that come out to cater to the needs of users who want to continue to do whatever they want with their PCs. The consumers can continue on their path without affecting us. So you like Apple? Tough, they don't cater to you. Find someone else. You and the rest of the geeks are your own trend, not the victim of a single amorphous hive mind.

But when in the future all computers sold are actually locked down "appliances", without a single low level toolkit, without being able to plug any hardware created without the consent of the supplier, without even physical ports to interface with anything else (all in the name of good design, of course, at least is how they will sell this "feature")... well, things will become quite bleach.

No they won't. You'll buy a product that has all those things that you need, because you have your own market. Who do you think things like the Raspberry Pi and Arduino are made for? The market is there already - it's just suppressed by the availability of general purpose PCs from vendors who mostly cater other types of people. When these PC vendors forget about us, our geek market will flourish.

You will end up with a generation that looks their computers like our own generation looks their TVs. This will result in a massive reduction in the interest in computers by potential people (that will proceed to some other professional path), and a slow down in innovation.

Maybe... though I take the selfish view of that and think of that positively. If true, the world will still never stop needing geeks. We'll be in higher demand, they'll pay us more, and they'll have more for us to do. Computers will no longer be a trendy field, and I think that's just fine.

Worse, since these "appliances" will be black boxes, they will be massive privacy killers and a powerful tool for authoritarian regimes to keep their sheep under control. After all, if you control what a computer can do, you also control what their users can see.

This implies other problems that Apple and Microsoft has nothing to do with.

You look at these corporate walled gardens with indifference for "geeks", however you don't seem to appreciate the extent to which we have benefited from commodity desktop computers being open.

1. Barriers to entry.
So long as commodity computers are sufficiently open, one will find that almost any desktop system in use can be used as is for real development. These ordinary computers can be used for development and normal use without restriction. The difference between a geek and a non-geek should be in the knowledge we possess. We don't have to special order an expensive "developer system". We don't need to pay for a yearly "developer key". Our own abilities are the limit. However when commodity computers become closed, this raises the bar to entry and artificial restrictions on our desktops end up becoming the limit.

2. Access to customers.
The availability of unrestricted niche computers for devs, while important, doesn't necessarily help if one's customers remain behind a restricted walled garden. Developers must be able to reach consumers who are using commodity hardware. Software developers loose when their customers cannot install their software.

The average user could not install and run a Linux box for any length of time without banging their head against the wall in frustration...

What rubbish! I installed Ubuntu 10.04 for my folks (they are in their late 60's and not computer savy - zero experience). I installed Linux because of its stability and no virus worries, and Ubuntu is easy to use. They have used their pc for a year now, writing documents, sending emails, printing photos (they surprised me by installing their own printer), and even Skype'ing. They say they are having lots of fun - and phoned me only once for support. So Linux is no more difficult to use than any other OS!

Number 1 is what other operating systems provide and Linux Desktop distros don't. A malware author has to make assumptions about the system for it to spread. Congratulate yourself all you like, but the nature of the OS that protects you is the same thing that makes it unattractive to software developers.

The second, while there are more Linux servers and they do have a good security track record, if they are left unpatched liked with the PSN network they can be hacked just like before.

To be fair, bloodline has a point, in one sense. People (in general) really do buy things from a consumer's standpoint. If I buy a new stereo for my truck, I don't want to have to install a bootloader and system firmware to get beyond a lit up display, or go wading across the internet looking for codecs so it will play WMA and MP3 files as stated on the box. No, I want to be able to hook it up, put in a disc or tune a station and get music.

That's the consumer mindset, and while the geeky side of the population has grown in the past few years the vast majority of people are average folks who just want something to turn on and spit their favorite content at them.

That said, I really hope this kind of thing from Apple (and Microsoft too, with Windows 8) doesn't spell the end of general purpose computers. The Raspberry Pi mentioned by bloodline won't be around forever, and it isn't really meant as a general purpose computer but as a learning tool for the education market. It just so happens to be cheap and geek-friendly, opening the door to those of us who want or need something small, powerful and easy to develop for.

I really hope we aren't seeing the end of the BYOPC/OS (build your own PC and/or OS) era, but this is definitely a step in the wrong direction in my eyes.

Well, you're perfectly right. I'm also using Linux as one of my OS and it works just fine. No need to become a slave to some corps, give out your rights, sell your soul to devil, give them your child, pay rediculous amount of money, and let them load you with ADs.

Of course, to keep it that way we need to stay focused and fight for it when endangered.

The problem is that people used to think they can't be free, they sell their privacy for 'free' services, etc.

You caveat it at the end, but the real problem is when you say stupid things like "Sure our Windows and Mac machines will be locked down... But that's why we buy them."

No, no one buys a computer because it is locked down. You don't either, you say you do, but that is because you didn't think before posting.

People buy a computer because it is useful and nigh required to do many things.

I buy Macs because of the decent hardware and the still-better-than-the-alternatives interface. But I'm not buying in to the Mac AppStore or iCloud and if either is required in 10.8, I'm on my last Mac.

I'm with you 100%.
I realized this was the direction Apple was taking even before they announced and was sad that it meant I was probably on my last Mac also, because I liked using them up until Lion came out.

Apple dropping good support/development of FCP Studio and Aperture, combined with moving toward dropping its Pro line of PCs, and the features dropped from MobileMe in iCloud, indicated to me that Apple is currently focused on mainstream consumers and not commercial environments. By the time Apple realizes it wants serious corporate penetration, and executes upon it, I predict that many corporations will have moved on to Linux/Windows 8/cloud as done by Amazon, and so passed on OS X/iCloud.

I'd add as enveloping perspective that I think that tablets are going to replace many current commercial PC based applications that can be improved by being more decentralized (this is currently happening with iPads in cabins replacing internet PC style cafes for cruise ship network access, for example). I make this comment because PCs are no longer the bottom of the chain, and tablets are undercutting them, just as networked PCs did to minicomputers and mainframes. Companies like Apple have to factor this in to their future plans.

I bought the mac because it was BSD underneath with a usable interface and had a wide support of open source software installed by default. For those who like to tinker, it was pretty good. Lots of hidden options, sure, but they were easily modifiable with a text editor.

Until someone actually bothers releasing it, with a 1% market share on the desktop don't count on it soon.

The reason why they are bringing out these app stores is because people have pirate software soo much in the last decade or so.

If you want to blame anyone it is those that have pirated software. I can either release software where people are going to pirate it endlessly or give MS/Apple a percentage and get guaranteed income if someone is going to use my software.

Oh yeah, because companies like Adobe don't rake in obscene amounts of money so their CEO can swim in a giant pool of gold coins like Scrooge McDuck because of this "rampant piracy"? Even though companies like Microsoft want you to use Windows by any means necessary as you will become dependent on it.

Apple isn't doing this about COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, they are doing it so that they can skim money off the top of every piece of software you put on your computer, because SEVENTEEN BILLION DOLLARS is nowhere near enough money...

Oh, and for only having "1% marketshare" Linux is attracting allot more attention from software companies because of all the data showing that "pirate" less and are willing to spend a bit more then those on other OSs as the market is under served for certain software types. Sure, you won't ever see all the hundreds of thousands of crapware for Linux, for the fact that all of the smaller software packages have already been covered by F/OSS apps already in the repos.

Cause as I said before, I have pretty much no use for Windows or OS X anymore once Bitwig and Lightworks are ported. As for games, Whats been coming out via Gameolith, Desura and the LGP are more then enough to keep me entertained showing Linux as pretty much essential market for upstart game houses. Titles like OilRush!, Amnesia and Trine show even the little guys can make some pretty nice high graphics titles and at a fraction of the cost of the "AAA" clone a game companies.

Games you say? The only game that matters is Minecraft and it runs on Linux just fine thankyouverymuch!

All kidding aside, there have indeed been great indie games for Linux lately, and I think in part that is due to developers becoming comfortable with Android, and realizing that Linux isn't all that different. Of course, you can do much more with Linux as you aren't limited to one or two languages.

Wouldn't that be something though? A combination of Apple and Microsoft locking down their platforms just as coders are becoming confident in desktop Linux causing it to spike in popularity? It may never happen, but it's fun to think about.

Oh, and for only having "1% marketshare" Linux is attracting allot more attention from software companies because of all the data showing that "pirate" less and are willing to spend a bit more then those on other OSs as the market is under served for certain software types. Sure, you won't ever see all the hundreds of thousands of crapware for Linux, for the fact that all of the smaller software packages have already been covered by F/OSS apps already in the repos.

Anything on the server side is tbh pretty good.

Desktop hasn't changed for the better since about 2005 when I was running SuSE 9.2 and using Matlab.

I am sure there are some companies making some apps ... but I don't think you guys understand the huge money made by bespoke applications.

Anyway the Linux Desktop seems to be fucking the server side up now as well ...

Cause as I said before, I have pretty much no use for Windows or OS X anymore once Bitwig and Lightworks are ported. As for games, Whats been coming out via Gameolith, Desura and the LGP are more then enough to keep me entertained showing Linux as pretty much essential market for upstart game houses. Titles like OilRush!, Amnesia and Trine show even the little guys can make some pretty nice high graphics titles and at a fraction of the cost of the "AAA" clone a game companies.

But I don't like playing those games, I like stuff like Call of Duty,Battlefield, Crysis and Star Craft II. But then again my favourite film is Predator, I am sorry I am the target demographic for most PC games.

If I want to play weird games I have my PS2 for stuff like Fatal Frame.

Unfortunately Linux Graphics stack is mess, and 3D runs faster on Windows, I don't see why I should cripple my system to run a free OS and yes I one of those guys that has Dual SLI graphics cards.

Guy seems to be nit pickiking allot, there are purpose built distros to do all of what he's looking to do.

Strange, Predator, Commando and Alien are my favorite films as well but I can't stand the sad state of PC FPS titles, all of which feel like they are exactly the same tired old game I've already played 10 times before, and not in a good way like Megaman/Rockman. The last FPS title I enjoyed was the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. series, more for the setting and RPG elements then anything else.

You might bring up online gaming in something like the latest CoD, but no, playing against some asshole 12 y/o that thinks he's a 1337 |-|@X0rz because he's using a trainer app(99% chance of virus) to see through walls and whatnot hasn't been appealing in years.

OilRush! is a pretty good RTS, it just doesn't appeal to the Starcraft/Command & Conquer snobs. Amnesia is a first person RPG like game based on Lovecraft horror stories like Frictional's Penumbra series.

Using the closed source drivers the framerate is near enough the same as to not matter since your screen's input is likely no higher then 60FPS the only thing "faster" gets you is all due to the placebo effect.

My only complaint is the lack of fighting games, but those suck on a comp anyways, it's one of those game types that well and truly sucks to play on anything but a real console controller. Besides, they're boring unless you're playing against someone sitting on the same couch as you so you can elbow each other's ribs to death as you play.

You might bring up online gaming in something like the latest CoD, but no, playing against some asshole 12 y/o that thinks he's a 1337 |-|@X0rz because he's using a trainer app(99% chance of virus) to see through walls and whatnot hasn't been appealing in years.

Sorry, couldn't resist.
I love playing games too but the sheer idiocy has ruined online gaming for me. That and the fact that you need to spend 8+ hours a day grinding to get some lame in-game money to buy upgrades and crap. Even in FPS games. Seriously, wtf is that about.

Thom darling, I know that conspiracy theories are cool and what not but lets read the press release:

Gatekeeper is a revolutionary new security feature that gives you control over which apps can be downloaded and installed on your Mac. You can choose to install apps from any source, just as you do on a Mac today, or you can use the safer default setting to install apps from the Mac App Store, along with apps from developers that have a unique Developer ID from Apple.

In other words if you're already an developer with an AppleID then you've got nothing to worry about. What it is all about is when an end user downloads an application they know the application they've downloaded is actually what it says it is rather than what we've seen recently with people downloading what they thought was the Flash plugin but quickly found out it was anything but what they expected.

The signing of applications is no different than Windows 7 64bit mandating that drivers created for Windows 7 64bit are digitally signed even though we had the same conspiracy theorists conflate the WHQL certification with digital signing of drivers.

As for Microsoft - come on, making Metro applications installable only via Marketplace, is that really something to wail in pain as though you're trying to pass a kidney stone? Lets all calm down, pull a cone, put on some Bob Marley and chill out for a second.

It is free to register but it costs $99 if you want to publish it on the App Store and also wish to have access to the preview releases. If you sign up as I do you only get access to documentation, released versions of SDK's and that is about it.

I work in China so see some interesting things, it is true in the US just about everything you do to take control of something you bought and paid for is a crime, but over here I have walked into Apple resellers and watched them jailbreak any of the devices you want for a small fee, it will be a long time before things are locked down except maybe in the US and Europe

Is an AppleID for developers free? What about all the (cross-compiled) FOSS apps?

Yes, your iTunes AppleID is the same AppleID you use for development; the developer tools are free to download and from what I have seen Xcode 4.4 DP has been released as well which will most likely be a free download just like previous Xcode releases. It will be simply a matter of signing your final product that'll include the AppleID and voila when your application is distributed it can be traced back to you if you're doing something bad.

This isn't about how it is today. It's about the path we've headed into.

People called me crazy when I said Apple would eventually include a switch like this. Now people are calling me crazy again? We all know where this is heading: full curation, similar to iOS. If you STILL want to insist there's no sign of this happening... Well, then I'm afraid you're a lost cause.

Like I said - as long as their freedom is taken away in small bits and pieces, people don't give a shit.

This isn't about how it is today. It's about the path we've headed into.

People called me crazy when I said Apple would eventually include a switch like this. Now people are calling me crazy again? We all know where this is heading: full curation, similar to iOS. If you STILL want to insist there's no sign of this happening... Well, then I'm afraid you're a lost cause.

Like I said - as long as their freedom is taken away in small bits and pieces, people don't give a shit.

I would love to know who these 'people are' given that most people I spoke to agree that Apple would enable some sort of way to restrict what can and can't be installed via the use of application bundle signatures but enable people to over ride it. Here we are in 2012 and guess what - the sky hasn't fallen, you can install what ever applications you want and everything is as cool as cucumbers.

You talk about 'taking away freedom bit by bit' - what have they taken away RIGHT NOW! not what could happen in 5 years but RIGHT NOW! not what you believe could happen but is happening RIGHT NOW! I mean, come on, what next, the analogy of the frog in a pot of water being boiled alive? comparisons between Mac OS X, Gatekeeper and goose stepping? I mean come on, the hysteria has all the stupidity associated with the debate in the US over 'Obama Care' and the claim there would be 'death panels' that would push Aunt Pearl off the cliff if her arthritis medication becomes too much! I would have thought you were better than this Thom - I really did.

Kaiwai, since I posted I can't moderate you down, and there isn't a choice for "Forgot to take his lithium".

You are a lost cause, in part because although you read what Thom said, you ignored it and reacted with your gut (oldthinkers unbellyfeel Ingsoc). He said essentially that Gatekeeper is a step toward more control, you want to talk about how it isn't total control RIGHT NOW IN ALL CAPS.

Kaiwai, since I posted I can't moderate you down, and there isn't a choice for "Forgot to take his lithium".

So rather than engage in a debate you'd sooner censor someone else's opinion. Funny how you're all 'freedom' until someone pisses you off with a view point you disagree with.

You are a lost cause, in part because although you read what Thom said, you ignored it and reacted with your gut (oldthinkers unbellyfeel Ingsoc). He said essentially that Gatekeeper is a step toward more control, you want to talk about how it isn't total control RIGHT NOW IN ALL CAPS.

If you're going to see the bar to conspiracies that low then why didn't he say the very same thing when Microsoft introduced signed drivers with Windows 7 64bit? How about the 'only allowed signed applications to run' which was provided with Windows 7 and Windows 2008 R2?

Moderating down stupid comments cleans up the discussion, it isn't censorship.

Funny, you say "Funny how you're all 'freedom' until someone pisses you off with a view point you disagree with."

Where exactly did I say I was all about freedom?

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You hear what you want to hear and reply to that--not to what someone actually says. Your comments need to be modded down until you can actually deal with what someone said, in this converstation by the way, not your fantasy of what someone said.

Frankly, I'm baffled how anyone couldn't recognize this as another step towards take control away from users and devs. This serves to empower apple, and you know it is exactly the motivation behind why apple's doing it.

Just because "the sky hasn't fallen" doesn't mean we must naively deny the very real threats that are taking shape "right now". More and more of our household computers are becoming restricted walled garden consumption devices. The public, particularly children, will loose many of the opportunities that we had to learn if they don't have access to open devices.

I already think the DRM in tablet devices has caused irreparable harm to technology education. The corporate plans by ms and apple to begin restricting desktop operating systems in similar ways is very sad. There's no doubt about it, those growing up behind restricted walled gardens will end up technologically illiterate compared to those who grew up with full access to the OS. This will become more apparent in oncoming years.

They've taken away the ability for people to stray beyond what Apple approves. Do you really think regular users are going to mess with a scary security setting?

And how do you think regular users become knowledgeable users? Exactly - they become so by venturing beyond the regular capabilities of the software they're using. By trying to stray form the carved path and explore - and large groups of people will now never get to do this exploring because it's locked up behind scary security switches and the like.

I would have never grown up to become a computer geek had I not had the ability to fcuk shit up. We're raising the digital equivalent of padded playground floor kids - you know those new playgrounds with bouncy floors so poor Timmy can't get an auwie when he tumbles off the jungle gym?

We're raising a generation of spoiled digital pussies. Fcuk ups are the best teaching moments.

They've taken away the ability for people to stray beyond what Apple approves. Do you really think regular users are going to mess with a scary security setting?

And how do you think regular users become knowledgeable users? Exactly - they become so by venturing beyond the regular capabilities of the software they're using. By trying to stray form the carved path and explore - and large groups of people will now never get to do this exploring because it's locked up behind scary security switches and the like.

I would have never grown up to become a computer geek had I not had the ability to fcuk shit up. We're raising the digital equivalent of padded playground floor kids - you know those new playgrounds with bouncy floors so poor Timmy can't get an auwie when he tumbles off the jungle gym?

We're raising a generation of spoiled digital pussies. Fcuk ups are the best teaching moments.

Just to copy and paste what I said prior: If you're going to see the bar to conspiracies that low then why didn't he say the very same thing when Microsoft introduced signed drivers with Windows 7 64bit? How about the 'only allowed signed applications to run' which was provided with Windows 7 and Windows 2008 R2?

I don't know about you but it seems pretty damn selective hysteria if you ask me - how about some consistency.

As for 'spoiled digital pussies' - get used to it. The world is designed for the lowest common denominator - the Nascar watching, Budweiser chugging, McDonalds chomping, SUV driving, credit card debt accumulating, mouth breathing, reality tv watching, Jersey Shore emulating knuckle draggers who believe that the friendly Nigerian who sent them an email is really going to share some of his wealth with them if only they hand over the bank details.

That is whom Apple and Microsoft (along with others) target so it is time to accept that you, I and most people here are in the minority and move on with life. The frustration you're exhibiting I went through 15 years ago when I was a Linux fan boy dead certain if people just pulled their head out of their ass and spent some time learning how to use their computer they would see the benefits of Linux. The sad reality is that as I've aged I realise that society will never change and to hold out the maybe some sort of collective consciousness occurs is simply putting far too much hope in humanity getting its collective shit together.

I don't know about you but it seems pretty damn selective hysteria if you ask me - how about some consistency.

It isn't. First of all, there's a world of difference between a hidden opt-in and opt-out. Second, as far as drivers are concerned - this is a much older thing (like, uh, 8 years or something?) and I have no trouble admitting that I didn't see it as a threat back then. Mind you, this was pre-iOS. Pre-WP7. Pre-iPad. Pre-Android. Pre-Windows 8.

So, 8 years ago I didn't see something as a threat, but now I do. You got me there.

As for 'spoiled digital pussies' - get used to it.

And with that one single 'get used to it', you proved my entire point. Thank you.

No thanks. This is exactly the problem that the Raspberry Pi project wants to address. There is a severe lack of digital education (and educators), at least in the US. You don't solve this problem by ignoring it. You solve it by addressing it. The only question is whether or not it's a problem worth addressing. In my opinion, it is. I think getting a proper computing education as just as important as getting a proper reading, writing, and/or math education.

The world is designed for the lowest common denominator - the Nascar watching, Budweiser chugging, McDonalds chomping, SUV driving, credit card debt accumulating, mouth breathing, reality tv watching, Jersey Shore emulating knuckle draggers who believe that the friendly Nigerian who sent them an email is really going to share some of his wealth with them if only they hand over the bank details.

No argument there at all.

That is whom Apple and Microsoft (along with others) target

Understood - they design for the user base with the largest market share.

so it is time to accept that you, I and most people here are in the minority and move on with life.

I definitely accepted this long ago.

The frustration you're exhibiting I went through 15 years ago when I was a Linux fan boy dead certain if people just pulled their head out of their ass and spent some time learning how to use their computer they would see the benefits of Linux.

Indeed. The key here is that you can't teach someone that is unwilling to learn, and trying to force people to learn something usually has the opposite of the intended effect.

The sad reality is that as I've aged I realise that society will never change and to hold out the maybe some sort of collective consciousness occurs is simply putting far too much hope in humanity getting its collective shit together.

I occasionally find myself thinking along those lines as well, but it's almost always after I've had a frustrating time dealing with someone that, despite my best efforts, just didn't get what I was trying to show them. It sucks. And I certainly can relate.

However, society definitely will never change as long as this is the attitude of its population. I think the best way to change this attitude is by educating the population, which was the point I was trying to make in the last sentence of my first paragraph.

As for 'spoiled digital pussies' - get used to it. The world is designed for the lowest common denominator - the Nascar watching, Budweiser chugging, McDonalds chomping, SUV driving, credit card debt accumulating, mouth breathing, reality tv watching, Jersey Shore emulating knuckle draggers who believe that the friendly Nigerian who sent them an email is really going to share some of his wealth with them if only they hand over the bank details.

I finally understand why you post the things that you do, not just in this thread but in general.

The world has gradations, kaiwai. The evildoers are human as are the angels. There is a little bit of Voltaire present in NASCAR, a little bit of Christopher Hitchens in the Bible, a bit of kiwi in George W. Bush and a little bit of Dennis Ritchie in every iPad user. Try to understand this and see that this blog is trying to change some of the patterns you detest--and it may even have the power to. No need to be so cynical all the time, it grates on peoples' nerves here.

Thom's point is as clear as day. Talking about the future is not a "conspiracy theory". It's called "talking about the future". I don't think that you honestly believe that this doesn't an incremental step in the major consumer OS vendors' increasing control of desktop PC's.

That said, I personally don't think Thom and commenters here give enough credit to the "average user". As the Arab spring has reminded us most recently, totalitarianism is both real and a myth: real in its brutal effects, myth in its claim to totality. People will keep resisting, and they'll even become aware of their resistance and that there is something that should be resisted. *Ahem* The eventual American intervention in Nazi Europe is not the only kind of salvation that exists; people will always rise up.

For the record: I have always said that if FOSS got some spine and earnestly tried to sell the public on the importance of libertas in software they would do phenomenally well. Programmers love love love to hate themselves and act condescendingly toward the rest of the world, saying that the "average user" will never understand. This has never been anything more than about job security (in a broad sense): as long as you say people won't get it, then there's no chance that they will, and so your mastery and puffed up sense of self-worth will continue unharmed.

They've taken away the ability for people to stray beyond what Apple approves. Do you really think regular users are going to mess with a scary security setting?

They won't, and that's the whole point. Look, we all know the real reason why Apple is doing this, just like when they said that Flash wasn't going to be on the iPhone. However, in the case of Flash, what ended up being good for Apple was also good for end users, since Flash is going away. This ultimately benefits end users, because the lack of Flash support on a device won't be a hindrance, and because Flash itself is a security nightmare, with more holes than Swiss cheese.

And I also think that limiting apps to the Mac app store will ultimately benefit your average Joe, especially where security is involved.

And how do you think regular users become knowledgeable users? Exactly - they become so by venturing beyond the regular capabilities of the software they're using.

See, that's the beauty of this setup - regular users don't NEED to become knowledgeable users; if they can use their computers to do what they need to get done without any voodoo involved, so much the better.

I would have never grown up to become a computer geek had I not had the ability to fcuk shit up. We're raising the digital equivalent of padded playground floor kids - you know those new playgrounds with bouncy floors so poor Timmy can't get an auwie when he tumbles off the jungle gym?

In the old days, when people fcuked up their computers, they figured out how to fix it. These days, when my friends and family fcuk up their computers, they call me and *I* have to deal with it. So anything that reduces my tech support calls is a win, as far as I'm concerned. I have little doubt that Apple is going to make it harder to turn this switch off, and to that I say GOOD. The harder it is for the computer-illiterate people that I have to provide tech support for to hurt themselves, the happier I am.

But hey, I understand the concern... what if Apple/MS make it impossible to turn this switch off?

It's the same kind of bullshit logic that says we shouldn't allow gay marriage to happen because it will lead to people molesting small children and marrying their horses.

Look, I think this is a good idea overall, and I hate when good ideas are shot down because people are afraid that some other thing will eventually happen as a result. Well, if it does happen and they make it mandatory, we'll deal with it at that time. As it stands, I think this kind of thing will result in people actually being able to USE their computer productively without having to know how it works. For whatever reason, the very thought of this seems to offend most geeks, like we're making things too easy. 'Hey, we had to walk butt-naked in the snow when it was 40 degrees below zero just to make our computers work, so why shouldn't everybody else?'

So anything that reduces my tech support calls is a win, as far as I'm concerned. I have little doubt that Apple is going to make it harder to turn this switch off, and to that I say GOOD. The harder it is for the computer-illiterate people that I have to provide tech support for to hurt themselves, the happier I am.

So... How do you become computer literate? Does the knowledge suddenly appear in your brain?

It's the same kind of bullshit logic that says we shouldn't allow gay marriage to happen because it will lead to people molesting small children and marrying their horses.

Um...No (I can't believe you're equating the two things). There is no evidence of that. There is evidence of lockdown (see Metro, iOS).

As it stands, I think this kind of thing will result in people actually being able to USE their computer productively without having to know how it works. For whatever reason, the very thought of this seems to offend most geeks, like we're making things too easy.

Here is a hopelessly convoluted analogy:

If you have a room with a door quite a few people are going to want to explore the other side of those doors; Some will like it, others won't, and many will be scared to even open the door. Now If you put a wall in the way, how many will go see the other side? How many will even know?

They've taken away the ability for people to stray beyond what Apple approves. Do you really think regular users are going to mess with a scary security setting?

Roadblocks are problems, not guardrails.

I don't see such a problem with safe defaults. I would prefer that people who don't know what they are doing leave that switch off in the first place. As long as they have an override for those who care to learn about and understand their computing environment, I am fine with it. It is not much different than requiring that users press option to see there library folder to keep the casual users from jacking up their settings.

I have a bigger question as to why their firewall ships in the off state on lion.

Don't worry Thom, as the Australian tourist to Asia in search of non cotton wooled experiences has show, with a few resultant deaths in boundary pushing, the same will happen with Tech.

Personally it would be nice to lock all these cotton wool brigaders away so as not hinder the progress of mankind but, it is going to take a lot before nannied West wakes the F up and gets over itself. I do believe this lot will happen quickly as the systems of the West implode under the weight of corruption and gov control much like the Soviet System imploded, cause enough of us said enough!

The irony will be those countries the media in the West called authoritarian and lacking in freedoms that will rocket ahead past the West and allow their people to have non locked down freedoms which the West is kissing bye bye.

They've taken away the ability for people to stray beyond what Apple approves. Do you really think regular users are going to mess with a scary security setting?

And how do you think regular users become knowledgeable users? Exactly - they become so by venturing beyond the regular capabilities of the software they're using. By trying to stray form the carved path and explore - and large groups of people will now never get to do this exploring because it's locked up behind scary security switches and the like.

I would have never grown up to become a computer geek had I not had the ability to fcuk shit up. We're raising the digital equivalent of padded playground floor kids - you know those new playgrounds with bouncy floors so poor Timmy can't get an auwie when he tumbles off the jungle gym?

We're raising a generation of spoiled digital pussies. Fcuk ups are the best teaching moments.

I read this differently. Apple will make it easier for users to install curated/signed apps as a default; but will also let any user easily install any other apps they wish. You will still have the freedom to f*ck up your computer as you please....so, please, knock it off with your tribal wisdom.

This isn't about how it is today. It's about the path we've headed into.

People called me crazy when I said Apple would eventually include a switch like this. Now people are calling me crazy again? We all know where this is heading: full curation, similar to iOS. If you STILL want to insist there's no sign of this happening... Well, then I'm afraid you're a lost cause.

Like I said - as long as their freedom is taken away in small bits and pieces, people don't give a shit.

I'm not particularly fond of the direction Apple has taken with its OS, but most people I know are still terrified of their computers. This is exactly what they want, and while I agree with you that companies like Apple, and Microsoft (and even Google) are seizing too much control, it is something the masses will willingly give up so they don't have to deal with their machines. Most people just aren't interested in the innards of their computers to care. Just like they all drive, but can't explain the difference between a 4 stroke and a 2 stroke engine, or the difference between composite or component video cables, etc.. etc... etc...
Fortunately for those of you who base their bravado on their technical knowledge, there will always be a *nix out there you can do whatever you want with.

"I agree with you that companies like Apple, and Microsoft (and even Google) are seizing too much control, it is something the masses will willingly give up so they don't have to deal with their machines. Most people just aren't interested in the innards of their computers to care."

Yes, I can agree with that. However there is a very big difference between designing an OS where users don't need to deal with the guts of the machine to use it (obviously good), and designing an OS where users cannot deal with the guts of the machine should they want to (obviously bad).

Keep in mind, even a technophobe has legitimate reasons to install third party software, and should not have to jump around walled garden hoops to do it.

I would much rather see apple & ms develop better application sandboxes which serve to protect the users from nefarious apps than to see them develop walled gardens which are difficult (and even against terms of use) to circumvent.

"Fortunately for those of you who base their bravado on their technical knowledge, there will always be a *nix out there you can do whatever you want with."

So far, for x86 this still seems to be the case. However I'm not sure there will be any commodity consumer-ready ARM hardware with explicit support for *nix. (Anyone?) ARM hardware with a bundled MS OS on them will be explicitly locked down. Ideally, one shouldn't have to break into one's own machine to program it.

And when I publish a "FuckApple" application, Apple will just delete my AppleID and user will see a big warning saying "This app is not safe".

I mean, why do I even need an ID to publish an application for anything ? It has been shown that it's easy to embed malware through Appstores (Android, Apple, whatever), so there is little gain in term of security. So why an ID ?

And when I publish a "FuckApple" application, Apple will just delete my AppleID and user will see a big warning saying "This app is not safe".

I mean, why do I even need an ID to publish an application for anything ? It has been shown that it's easy to embed malware through Appstores (Android, Apple, whatever), so there is little gain in term of security. So why an ID ?

You don't need to have an AppleID - you can continue installing that haven't been digitally signed. The digital signing of your application with an AppleID has nothing to do with Apple approving or disapproving your application - it is merely signing the application to say that you the developer associated with the AppleID created the application.

Errrr... you don't really answered bouhko question, he didn't asked if he can or not install a application. It's about the scaring factor imposed by Apple on common users installing a non approved application.

You don't need to have an AppleID - you can continue installing that haven't been digitally signed.

You forgot the ",for now" in the end...

Someone who accepts developing and aggregate value for a platform that imposes a form of light corporate censorship quietly, will also accept to lose some more rights just as quietly.

1) Thom is complaining about the end user's rights, not developers per se.

2) What flash download are you referring to?

3) Making Metro applications installable only via Marketplace is something to complain and wail about. I want to be able to write apps and install aps without going through a gate keeper. Bob Marley is a good suggestion, though. Maybe something like "Get up, Stand up". There is a time to chill, and a time to protest as Bob well knew. Now is a time to protest.

"Come on Get Up, Stand Up, stand up for your right Get Up, Stand Up, don't give up the fight "

1) ARM is metro only.
2) ARM requires locked boot loader to run Win 8.
3) ARM power usage to performance is really good.
4) ARM based long battery life laptops will come out eventually.
5) I want to run what I want on them, since I bought them!

The Android way of a little check box to say, yes, I know this could be bad is a good idea. Locking it down is not.

How long before you need an Apple Developers ID to install Apps outside the App Store and I'm sure when that happens there will be a nice PR piece about it and Engadget and Cnet will tell us that ordinary people don't need to install non-App Store apps its only professionals that require that 'privilege'. TBH I don't care what they do by default just make it simple for me to setup my computer the way I want to use it without having to resort to the CLI and editing configuration files.

Are their any open-source programs in the Mac Store? You know, things like Blender and Gimp?

It would suck if people were restricted to ad-ridden shareware and commercial software. Assuming the idea of eliminating the switch was real, people would be forced to install Linux just to run free quality programs

Or would it?

Unless the internet is somehow appified and restricted too, the information showing how to do this should be freely available. People who want software outside of Apple's control will learn a lot in the process of regaining ownership of their machines - even if they are all powered by ARM processors and running restricted desktop environments.

I'm also surprised the writer didn't mention one other issue. If app distribution is restricted to one publisher, that publisher can charge any licensing fee and royalty they want. Just look at the music industry. A few big publishers, crazy high royalties, musicians get hardly nothing except for what they can scrounge up at special events.

That's going to suck. Never-mind the little guy too... the big guys are going to be pissed about it as well. Can you imagine Autodesk and Adobe being told that most of the revenue from their software will now go to Apple?

Finally, I know Apple doesn't care about anyone but the consumer... but their systems are used by many art production places, who probably wouldn't like it if they had to upload their proprietary in-house software to the Apple Store just to install it on their own machines. I don't think the switch is going away - because if it did, it would eat at the value of the final product.

No switch pisses off you the developer, it pisses off software companies, it pisses off artists - all large and small. It's cute that they put it there to make things simple and encourage people to use their market, but if they take that out they'll regret it. Heck, I think they can even be sued for it.

Hence the reason why VLC has changed the license of their core Library infrastructure to LGPL so that they can distribute through the iOS and Mac App Store. IMHO I guess I do have a bias in preferring LGPL over GPL given that it strikes a balance.

Seriously guys, just change the name of the site. It's not news when you have wild speculation like:

"However, this is all temporary, something to smooth us over. In Mac OS X 10.9, the master switch and force-install will be ever harder to find or relegated to CLI commands - after which it is removed completely. Both Windows and Mac OS X will move towards a fully curated environment, in a nice, step-by-step manner to ease us into the idea of no longer having ownership of our machines."

Also, I love Linux just as much as the next OSnews reader, but really the constant Apple and Microsoft hate gets pretty old. It's basically why I barely ever come here anymore.

As long as you do not state a date, it is mere FUD. One cannot falsify it, as Popper would say. Let you be liable to statements like "you predicted that at this time something would happen and it has not" or otherwise just let Apple do whatever they want and just comment and not spread misinformation.

If you allow yourself that kind of statements, do not complain of Microsoft saying "you cannot do real work on Linux" or Apple saying "Android is doomed to disappear" or me saying "OS X is just a bunch of badly glued GUI funny ideas".

At least the "real work" is something one can argue. One cannot argue on the future, though.

This way you always win: you are never wrong and that is not fair when you accuse someone of misbehaving.

Unless secure boot stops us from using alternative operating systems of course. Will the switch to turn of secure boot on x86 systems be there forever?

Also, will cheap and widely available x86 systems be there forever ?

If some variety of ARM device becomes the de facto home computer, relegating x86 to a high-end workstation market, who will care if hardware costing thousands of dollars is able to run alternative OSs ?

I want to be able to distribute my own software on whatever commodity desktops happen to be in common use, regardless of whether they are ARM/x86/etc.

I think that I should have the right to do so, and that my users should have the right to install it on their own hardware without the approval of a third party gatekeeper. Sure, a manufacturer gets to pick who is listed in their own store, but beyond that they need to promote their stores to users & devs by providing a superior experience and value-added benefits, not by locking the devices and eliminating choice.

The non-optional win-8 bootloader locks for ARM will make an otherwise happy transition to ARM become rather miserable for open developers like us.

I want to be able to distribute my own software on whatever commodity desktops happen to be in common use, regardless of whether they are ARM/x86/etc.

I think that I should have the right to do so, and that my users should have the right to install it on their own hardware without the approval of a third party gatekeeper. Sure, a manufacturer gets to pick who is listed in their own store, but beyond that they need to promote their stores to users & devs by providing a superior experience and value-added benefits, not by locking the devices and eliminating choice.

The non-optional win-8 bootloader locks for ARM will make an otherwise happy transition to ARM become rather miserable for open developers like us.

Uhh... how do corporations have more rights than you? You do realize that you don't _have_ to buy the iPad, iPhone, or Win8 ARM machines, right? You're not being force-fed this stuff, it's all being made available. Now if you _want_ a Win8 ARM machine, you have to settle with the restrictions of the product _as_a_whole_, because it's being sold _as_a_windows_machine_ not as a do what you want machine. Once the hardware is in your hands you can do what you want. If you want to run Linux, you need to make the necessary changes _yourself_, they won't do it for you because it's not their job and it's not the purpose of the device. But you can do with the hardware whatever you want, it just may break the warranty (making the hardware do something it wasn't intended to do does not need to be warranted by the manufacturer, no matter how many people scream it does).

Currently, in the US and essentially in countries that bend to it's will corporations do in fact have more rights then you do as they've gotten corporate person-hood which also means that money is now speech. It's why a group like the RIAA can have the CIA and FBI go around the world and take down your server, to do that takes an incredible amount of political pull.

Influence != rights. I do recognize this as a technicality, but rights cannot be removed or granted, they simply exist (and anybody who talks about artificial "rights" is blowing smoke). _Certain_ corporations may have more influence than others (money talks, in all forms), but not all corporations have the same level of influence as others, and not all corporations have more influence than individuals.

Influence != rights. I do recognize this as a technicality, but rights cannot be removed or granted, they simply exist (and anybody who talks about artificial "rights" is blowing smoke). _Certain_ corporations may have more influence than others (money talks, in all forms), but not all corporations have the same level of influence as others, and not all corporations have more influence than individuals.

Wrong, as I said, they where given the rights of a person as defined by their twisting of the 14th amendment. Thus a corporation has all of the legal rights of a human + all the legal rights of a company with none of the restrictions that would normally apply.

Thus they have more rights then you do exacerbated by the fact that they have enough money to now essentially do whatever they like.

That must be it. In a world of self-entitlements and anti-corporation, it's hard to tell sarcasm from genuine in that type of statement.

Oh yes, the world is so anti corporate that they aren't making record breaking profits in a global recession?

Get off this site paid shill. We don't need the robber barons of yore as they do nothing but destroy nations and divide the world for nothing more then a few more dollars in their pockets just to spite their fellow man.

Starting with Mac OS X 10.8, Apple's desktop operating system will be restricted to Mac App Store and Apple-signed applications by default (with an opt-out switch), following in Windows 8's footsteps.

This is factually incorrect in two ways.

1. By default OS X 10.8 will run App Store apps and developer signed applications. Developers will be able to purchase a signing certificate from Apple but they do the signing.

2. Nothing stops you from running unsigned applications or applications that didn't come from the App Store. If you right click on an app and choose open it will pop up a dialog box asking if you want to proceed. If you say yes the app will launch and you are never prompted again.

The way this functionality is implemented should make it obvious that Apple isn't going to stop people from running applications from outside the App Store. If they were they wouldn't have made it transparently easy to avoid the restrictions of Gatekeeper. It is clear that they are going to provide tools to the end users to ensure they are not getting modified apps (the current favorite vector for getting trojan's onto the Mac).

So what’s an “identified developer?” Basically, it’s any developer who registers as a developer with Apple and receives a personalized certificate. The developer can then use that certificate to cryptographically sign their apps. Any such app has two important characteristics

What he said in number 1 was clear.

When you try to launch an app using this system, your Mac will check with Apple’s servers to see if the developer’s signature is current. But what it doesn’t seem to mean is that previously-installed malware will be wiped clean, because once an app passes File Quarantine and launches successfully for the first time, it’s basically escaped Apple’s screening system.

Apple's introducing Gatekeeper, which can only be described as a bold new middle ground for app distribution: an optional setting in OS X 10.8 allows users to restrict their systems to run only apps that have been signed by trusted developers using a free certificate provided by Apple.

Which supports both of his assertions (except for the purchase of signing key) ... apparently you might want to take reading comprehension classes.

EDIT: I would like to point out that a signing of packages for a developer is very much like the signing of packages from a particular repository with Linux.

So apparently it is Evil if Apple make you do it, but alright if Fedora suggest it.

Well, I have a Fedora install right before my eyes, and I can download and install random RPMs from the internet just fine.

I can also build source packages and install them manually if I really want to. There is no attempt from the Fedora project to make this task difficult.

That's what Thom is talking about here. Signed repositories are not bad in themselves, they only become a problem when users are not able to install software from a third-party source without vendor-imposed hassle.

I don't understand where the problem is coming from, developer X get Key Y and signs their applications with it ... users can install it ... I don't understand what the problem is.

My problem essentially revolves around two elements :
-Where does key Y come from ? The developer himself (self-signing) or a third party ?
-If it is a third party, may it choose not to provide keys to the developer and/or to revoke existing keys ?

Again, I have no problem with OS manufacturers maintaining their own repository, signed by them, fully under their control, integrated in fresh OS installs, etc... But I think that independently distributed software has its place too. OS manufacturers may not favor it, but making it artificially difficult to install and/or use crosses the line.

That's what Thom is talking about here. Signed repositories are not bad in themselves, they only become a problem when users are not able to install software from a third-party source without vendor-imposed hassle.

Unfortunately, Thom's anti-Apple blinders are on so tight he is spreading verifiably false information. There is nothing stopping user's from installing software from anywhere in Mountain Lion and there is, at the worst, a minor easily avoided vendor imposed hassle.

1. You can download signed software from anywhere. The certificate is in the developer's name and Apple has no way to restrict what is signed or where it's distributed.

2. Even if you are not using the "Allow anything" preference, all you need to do is right click an app, click open and then click through an "Are you sure" prompt. From then on you can run the app with no prompt.

There is nothing in this release that makes it difficult to get around Gatekeeper if it's turned on and there is an option to turn it off completely if my #2 is too much for you.

You can download signed software from anywhere. The certificate is in the developer's name and Apple has no way to restrict what is signed or where it's distributed.

AFAIK, Apple is the only source of signing keys and may blacklist any key they have delivered previously using OS security updates. If both of these statements are true, they have enough resources to ban software from any developer at will, though possibly not in a fine-grained way.

Even if you are not using the "Allow anything" preference, all you need to do is right click an app, click open and then click through an "Are you sure" prompt. From then on you can run the app with no prompt.

Sure, when running a program on OS X doesn't work, your first idea is to right click it, especially considering the frequent use of right clicks in the OS X UI and the simplicity of performing a right click on Macs...

I am not saying that running unsigned software is impossible on OS X 10.8, though it may become the case in later releases of OS X. But it does seem that Apple want to make it difficult on purpose.

1. They're signed by developers using Apple's signature, i.e., Apple-signed.

2. His second "fact" was actually mentioned quite clearly in both the teaser and the article, despite him claiming it isn't. "

My facts aren't wrong you anti-Apple troll.

1. You have no clue what you're talking about. They are signed using a certificate provided by Apple. The certificate is in the developer's name, not Apple's. Apple has no way of knowing what applications are being signed using that certificate or what those applications do. The only thing that may be wrong about my statement is I said a certificate needs to be purchased, turns out it may be available for free. There is conflicting information about that.

2. First you claim my facts are wrong, then you claim it's already in the article. It isn't. You said:

Starting with Mac OS X 10.8, Apple's desktop operating system will be restricted to Mac App Store and Apple-signed applications by default (with an opt-out switch), following in Windows 8's footsteps.

Which is wrong, there is no restriction, even if you don't switch to the "Allow anything" setting.

Mac OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion can only run Mac App Store or Apple-signed applications by default. There is a master switch to switch between App Store-only, App Store+signed, and unrestricted (the current behaviour). In addition, you can force-install an application even if it violates the master switch.

Which is wrong, there is nothing to "force" to install an unsigned application and you are prompted a grand total of one time if you're sure you want to run an unsigned application.

However, this is all temporary, something to smooth us over. In Mac OS X 10.9, the master switch and force-install will be ever harder to find or relegated to CLI commands - after which it is removed completely.

This would be a paranoid fantasy and there is no evidence to indicate this is Apple's intention. As a matter of fact, if they were trying to slowly lock things down it seems they would start, you know, locking things down. On the contrary, they are making it easier for developers to get some of the good features of the App Store without having to use the App Store. You know, the exact opposite of your premise.

Unfortunately, OSNews has become so virulently anti-Apple, posting verifiable facts (with an entire article from someone who actually used the feature describing in detail how it works) is basically a waste of time.

Which is wrong, there is no restriction, even if you don't switch to the "Allow anything" setting.

With an opt-out switch. I said, with an opt-out switch. Opt-out. Like I said, it's in the article.

Which is wrong, there is nothing to "force" to install an unsigned application and you are prompted a grand total of one time if you're sure you want to run an unsigned application.

Exactly... You have to right-click and FORCE an install. Like I said, it's in the article.

Look, the article's fact are 100% correct, because they're copied almost verbatim from Engadget and The Verge. You may not like the opinions and/or predictions in the article, but that's no reason to claim I'm lying or being an anti-Apple troll - especially since the article clearly targets Microsoft as well.

This utter bullshit about me being anti-Apple has to stop. I'm not anti-Apple - I'm anti-anyone who employs the kind of business tactics Apple and Microsoft employ. Apple makes some great products (every review I've ever written makes that very clear) but the company's practices are rotten.

I'm free to think that and explain why I think that without being labelled an anti-Apple troll every time. Not everyone approves of your pet company's tactics. Deal with it.

I'm anti-anyone who employs the kind of business tactics Apple and Microsoft employ. Apple makes some great products (every review I've ever written makes that very clear) but the company's practices are rotten.

I think you need to deal with the fact that is business. If you don't like how capitalist companies behave there are other models (such as cooperative) ... that might be more to your liking.

Not only that, you can hardly take the moral high ground after buying many of their products ... apparently you are telling us that talk is cheap and you are quite happy to support said company as long as they make gadgets you like.

What the hell are Apple doing? 10.7 has been out less than a year and it still sucks ass. Its soo frigging slow compared to Snow Leopard - its too early to think about releasing a 10.8 until the existing major bugs are fixed in 10.7....

They might as well have called 10.7 - Mac OS X Spinning Wheel.

Just take a look at sites like OSNews, AmigaWorld and probably others... "Is your MAC running slow?" adverts everywhere.

I am also concerned about locking us into this App-Store system permanently - "so-long free open source software!"

Totally agree SL was the best version of OS X the only improvements in Lion are the theme and the new Log in screen. Charging far more than competitors for their computers then selling incremental OS upgrades every year to users doesn't seem right to me.

Well when OS X started out I used every release from 10.0 to 10.4 on a 600Mhz iBook G3 and each release was faster on the same old laptop, up till 10.5 which was the first to run slower then the previous version.

In Mac OS X 10.9, the master switch and force-install will be ever harder to find or relegated to CLI commands - after which it is removed completely. Both Windows and Mac OS X will move towards a fully curated environment, in a nice, step-by-step manner to ease us into the idea of no longer having ownership of our machines.

As Lorelai Gilmore explains about how her dog is okay with being on a leash as long as the dog doesn't actually see the leash being put on him: "He's totally fine having his personal freedom slowly stripped away, as long as he's completely unaware that it's happening. Just like a true American."

your entire life has lead up to this moment thom. you hit me in the gut and it hurt. golf clap.

what kind of irony is it that just as open source software has become more common and higher quality than ever, closed systems are getting even more closed? I don't know what to make of it. I knew computers would become cheaper and commoditized, but I wasn't planning on them becoming microwaves.

My only question is, after spending $1000+ dollars on a Mac, who owns it, Apple, or me? If it's Apple, then I expect them to buy it for me and I'll pay only a nominal leasing fee. Otherwise, hands off Apple!!!

...that I never broke down and bought a Mac. It was tempting, but at this point... they're just locking down an already severely locked-down OS... even more. It was bad enough that you couldn't easily install Mac OS X on generic x86 hardware, and you were on a forced OS upgrade cycle that was made worse by pretty much all Mac applications being developed and compatible only on one or two recent Mac OS X versions.

Want Application A version 1? Tough, you're stuck with an OS X version 1. Want the all-new Application A version 2? Get the latest OS version 2. But do you want to run Application B, which is not available for the latest and greatest OS version 2? Well... tough, you're stuck with the older OS X and the older version of Application A if you want to continue running Application B. Now eliminate all non-Apple-signed binaries and picture is complete. Mac OS X is officially no longer of use at all and is even more of a massive pain in the ass.

I'm really surprised it took Apple this long to do this though, since they're such control freaks. I guess they've just been too busy suing everybody for the dumbest reasons/patents to actually do any real development work. Or they've been in secret talks with Microsoft to see if they would do the same, because if they didn't, Apple knew that if they were the only ones to do this it would begin their death.

This is a big mistake. This is a PC, not a toy OS, and is used seriously by people who need to run some random application (even code compiled by themselves) that is never going to be found on the App store. If I can't install my latex version of choice, I will either jailbreak it or install Windows/Linux on it. How about emulators (banned from the iOS)? Java? Scripting??

Well let them do it, kill their own developer community if they wish. How about a teenage kid who finds out that it's now impossible to install pirate photoshop on this machine - and the retail version is $150 or so on Mac Store. He's going to end up switching to Windows (which will at least run classic apps for much longer).

How about a teenage kid who finds out that it's now impossible to install pirate photoshop on this machine
Obviously this is that they do not want to happen.
Why do not just install GIMP or whatever instead?

"Killing a developer community" is a bold statement.
Apple offers their development tools for free.

Most things will move to web anyway.
JS+WebGL is cool. You can be hardcore even here.
But native apps still needs to be written and nobody can take these opportunities from you.

I read through the OS X announcement on Engadget earlier today and I cringed at the Gatekeeper part, instead of making sure that all the windows and doors are locked Apple have decided to just brick up the font door in the name of security. Richard Stallman despite all of his badly thought through rants was right, in a proprietary system users are discouraged from understanding how their machines work and in order to prevent users from understanding more and more freedom is taken from them, its a downward spiral. It won't be long now till PC's become like TV's you turn in on, hit a button and your on FaceBook, another button now you've got YouTube, this is inevitable in a consumerist society.

I remember reading the article Thom wrote about how Apple would lock down OS X and as a Mac user I was disappointed and it seems he was right. Now if only it was less of a pain installing Ubuntu on the 2011 Mac Mini...

Heh... must suck to have actually bought recent Mac hardware. I'm glad I was broke and had so many other things that I was interested in spending my money on, because I was really considering a Mac (if only to play around with the OS) for a while. At the time I was interested, if I were to have bought one, it wouldn't have taken much time at all that Apple was building one hell of a brick wall against their users' freedom of installing software on their own machines, and given Apple's already-overpriced generic hardware, I could imagine how pissed off I would be now after reading about this.

If drivers are any indication: it started in Windows 98 that a warning would be displayed for unsigned drivers. Since Vista x64 (2007), you have to change some obscure boot loader setting to load unsigned drivers. So it took Microsoft 9 years from step 1 to step 3 there.

"They're looking ahead and seeing that malware might be a problem for Mac OS X," said Charlie Miller, security researcher at Accuvant. "It's really the only long-term solution to malware. They've seen that in the iOS the lockdown approach works and for most people it's okay. I think they're now trying to move OSX toward the iOS security model and I think that's smart."

Not sure if it is just me, but after installing, when i opened Security&Privacy (Preferences), it was set to "Anywhere" on the "Allow applications downloaded from" section.
Someone else had the same option selected by default?

In Mac OS X 10.9, the master switch and force-install will be ever harder to find or relegated to CLI commands - after which it is removed completely

I suspect the master switch will eventually be removed, but I would be surprised to see this happen that fast.
The limited app-store model on iOS didn't pose any real problems, because there where no apps yet and it still is the only way ( without jail braking ) to deliver your apps on iOS.
Mac OS X already has an established software market, and sealing off the OS by restricting it to Appstore-only software will kill platforms/services like Steam on OS X. ( I don't think AAPL will allow Steam in their app store ) Can they get away with this without getting sued?

Well, it took Apple 2 revisions to remove PPC support entirely - 10.5 was available for PPC and included Rosetta on Intel, 10.6 allowed it via Rosetta as an option, 10.7 doesn't allow it. It basically forced the software developers to produce updated versions of their apps. If an app was no longer developed, tough luck. I can imagine this being a similar story: your app worked fine on 10.7, but won't on 10.9. Either buy an upgrade from Adobe or whoever, or use an older version of the OS...

This signed/app store stuff doesn't lock a Mac down, it does make thing easier/safer for normal users.

In the future it may become mandatory, which I (and you) wouldn't like.

But for 99% of the users it doesn't matter and would be better. If there is a hidden button to mess up a computer, people will find it and press it. The iPhone and iPad don't have such a button and don't get messed up.

Sure, it would be great if dumb people could use a computer and never have to call us when they break it. But for us it wouldn't be great. I'd keep my Mac, but I'd put a Linux PC next to it.

But let's hope Apple will never go that far and not leave any option. Right now it would't make sense anyway, but times can change.

But for 99% of the users it doesn't matter and would be better. If there is a hidden button to mess up a computer, people will find it and press it. The iPhone and iPad don't have such a button and don't get messed up.

Here are bunch of areas where OS X Gatekeeper default app signing policy could be problematic.

If someone was to create an app called ScrewApple which speaks negatively against Apple, would Apple allow this type of free speech app to be signed?

What about various adult entertainment apps that are perfectly legal but something Apple may find morally objectionable?

There are legal apps such as apps that track locations of police checkpoints. Would Apple cave to the pressure from the government to deny signing of such apps?

How would Apple deal with apps that would be legal in one country but would be illegal in another? An example would be an app that mocks king of Thailand. This would be illegal in Thailand while legal everywhere else. Will an app require some sort of region locking?

Would Apple allow signing of an app that jailbreaks iOS devices? As the law stands today, jailbreaking is perfectly legal but would Apple allow such an app to be signed?

Would Apple allow an app that's a front end to a competing App Store? What if someone wants to build an app that sells third party applications just like the Mac App Store? Would Apple allow such a thing?

Will Apple demand a cut of sales if an app is a store front end? An example would be a Kindle reader app that allows user to purchase ebooks. Another example would be digital magazine or comic book app that allows subscription purchases. How would downloadable game service like Steam be possible under Mountain Lion?

How would Mountain Lion handle app plugins such as Photoshop plugins? What about browser plugins like flash? What about browser extensions?

If Apple has a plan to bring iAd to OS X apps, would they deny signing of apps that block ads?

How would Mountain Lion handle scripting languages? Apps written in Python or Perl are just plain text files and they don't have any concept of digital signing. Apps written in these languages would completely bypass digital signing mechanism. How would these cases be handled by Mountain Lion?

Will Java apps running in Java VM also fall under the same digital signing requirement? How would Mountain Lion enforce such a requirement?

What kind of conflict does it pose for GPL app to be digitally signed? Will digital signing be considered a violation of GPL hence all apps licensed under GPL be excluded from signing?

Apple and Microsoft seem to want to go the console way, where only a selected set of people/companies are allowed to have access to development tools. And even if you are allowed to play, then you still would need to go through a certification process.

In a way, bringing us back to the dark ages of the mainframes, before home computing was possible, and each company controlled who was targeting their OS/Hardware.

The iPhone/iPad paradigm has proved a massive success. And certainly for many (by far the majority) of users it will be an improvement over assuming that the users understand the risk at which they put themselves by recklessly clicking at links and installers.

BUT...

I'm not one of those users. The instant, I no longer have the option to install whatever I want, I will ditch Apple. I've been with Apple since circa 1983.

Apple's measures means less family tech support for me. But the instant I can no longer install what I want (I might go so far as tolerating resorting to CMI commands), then I'm switching to Linux or BSD, both of which i'm comfortable with.

I've been very happy with Snow Leopard. It looks like Apple is doing its best to make sure pro users have no more interest in their products.

$100 says Mac sales start a fairly rapid decline.

Looks like the end of the line for mainstream general purpose computing. I think most geeks will be going ARM soon. Raspberry Pi is just the beginning. Dual and quad-core ARM boards with similar goals and more potent GPU's will follow.

It was a good day, Friday, to see that my system will no longer be supported in 10.8 (Macbook Pro 2,2 w/X1600).

It took 2 solid days of mucking with mbr, gpt, grub2, and grub2-efi to get a good partitioning scheme that will boot on Apple's goofy EFI implementation in legacy mode with working video (X1600 does NOT play nice in efi mode), but here I am on Monday with Fedora 16 x86_64 fully functional.

No more App Store silliness. I have been meaning to do this for a long while, and this is just th push I needed.

Make sure that you enable AHCI, since apple disables it when booting into non mac operating systems.

The only reason I discovered this is because I installed a BD burner on one of the extra ports on the mother board and was not pleased to discover that it did not work.

What I find hilarious is that my monitor set up ( a 20" monitor running portrait, and a 30" runs landscape) runs fine with the opensource ati video drivers, but the closed source ones can not support both monitors at the same time. Something about exceeding virtual workspace.

The last time I ran linux as a desktop was in 1999, that was until I discovered a beta for OSX and I went out and bought a dual g4 to sit next to my dual monitor ultra 10 and linux box. Eventually the dual g4 became the only computer and was upgrade to a G5, and then to the macpro1,1 that I have now.

I guess I have to thank them. I was waiting until the new mac pros were going to come out in a month or two and was going to drop $5000 or so for my next machine to last 5-6 years.

So here is the question, who else makes hardware like the macpro and is reasonably priced? Dell precision actually costs more for equivalent hardware.